User:SweatingCup2632: Difference between revisions

|themecolor = #a3a60d

|textcolor = #ffffff

==Opinion concerning current conflicts and disputes==

My economic doctrine revolves around the concept of creating a stable, secure and profitable environment for businesses through policies designed to stimulate economic growth (such as subsidies, soft loans, crisis intervention at the discretion of companies...) and minimise the possibility of insolvency. These policies will be implemented in a way that balances a welfare state, with high public spending and high standards for wages. The sources of revenue for the state will be caused by expected economic growth and, consequently, GDP growth, and by a taxation system focused on a few progressive and universal taxes that are fair. I am pro-free market vis-à-vis nations with a market comparable or better than the national one, because there is no risk of them replacing yours, whereas with nations like China or India the tables are turned. The domestic market must always be the convenient one. As for inflation, it will be controlled through centralisation of the currency, coupled with bullish trading policies that follow the needs of the moment in a malleable and responsive manner, as well as rare shock appreciation policies in cases of very serious crises.

I believe that [[File:Bankocracy.png|frameless]] [[Bankocracy|central banks]] should play a fundamental role in the monetary stability of the country. Since my economic programme envisages fast economic growth, it is important to keep inflation at acceptable levels (3% at the most). Inflation targeting shall be forward-looking and flexible so that it can contribute to high and stable output and employment, and to counteracting financial imbalances.

Alas, regulationism in history has caused some trouble, and all (or most) of it for one reason: regulationism was run cumbersomely. The policies implemented most of the time were incompatible with the natural functioning of the market, often leading to a sick and dependent market on the decidedly not eternal subsidies. In my view, however, interventionism must have the dual purpose of welfare and economic growth. For example, if you need to hire people in an area, you focus on the most productive sectors by going along with financial forecasts and thus giving the initial financial boost to a growth process that must be autonomous.

Taxation is '''NOT''' theft, it's just a way for some of the individual's wealth to go to society, as it should if we want (and demand) a civilized and organized system. However, I think taxation must follow three basic points: it must be progressive (so no flat tax), concentrated on a few large taxes, and based on the individual's income or wealth. The last point is fundamental: if an entrepreneur is very rich, we should tax him more than the company itself. Company taxes shall follow the current flow, if not be reduced. The company must have all the money it needs to grow, people should be mainly be taxed for their individual (real) income. Of course, taxes on corporations will still be there, but universal taxes like the income tax will have an emphasis, so that:

* Fund a full welfare state

Trade unions should not exist; they should be replaced by non-aligned semi-state associations that find the intersection between the interests of workers, the employer and, secondarily, the state. Compromises would occur primarily through subsidized loans.

I'll be brief here, welfare should behighly extended, but based on the productivity of the individual, except in desperate cases. A possible homeless person will have to enjoy various possibilities to integrate into the world of work and repay his debt to the state simply by working (remember that the state derives from growth and work). Wages will be determined by collective agreements between the state and the single companies, so that the company's income is fairly distribuited among its dependents without having to discourage growth

Robots are wonderful, they increase productivity considerably, but they can cause so many people to lose their jobs. Therefore, adding an exception to my taxing policy, robots should be taxed heavily (and progressively, or it wouldn't apply to corporations), so that mass replacement would be too expensive

For those unfamiliar with this curve, the Kuznets curve is a theory by Simon Kuznets, which states the inverse proportionality between economic growth and income inequality. To disprove this theory, we need only take two countries: the United States and Norway. Norway's economic growth is not comparable to that of the United States, but the opposite is true for income inequality. The economist Thomas Piketty has tried to readjust it, making the curve U-shaped, but I think that, after so many examples in the world today, one cannot draw such a direct correlation with economic growth and income inequality.

Price control is that form of state intervention which consists in the direct (and forced) modification of prices, mainly on essential goods. The problem lies in the relationship between demand and prices. If prices are fixed and cannot be changed in response to demand, supply will not be able to sustain demand. Moreover, prices will not always be compatible with production prices, which can lead to economic losses.

The theory of Malthusianism states that widespread poverty is caused by ever-increasing population growth, which leads to a wider distribution of wealth. This theory therefore states that a birth control policy must be implemented to stop this process. I find this theory incredibly superficial - fewer people means less manpower. Furthermore, stating this theory would mean that wealth is distributed evenly across the world's population, which is not true.

Modern Monetary Theory states that inflation depends on government fiscal policies and that taxation is a means of counteracting it. There is a problem with this theory: the fact that the value of the currency also depends on investors' confidence in the state, not to mention relations with countries abroad.

I would like to see a federal presidential republic, therefore with autonomous regions but loyal to the legitimacy of the central government. This republic would crack down on corruption, money laundering and various other behaviours that could damage the functioning and/or image of the state, through heavy penalties and infiltration of parliamentary circles

[[File:Lfree.png|frameless]] ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations The Wealth of Nations]'' - A classic. It basically explains how the market works, but it doesn't consider the practical hindrances

[[File:Soc21.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century ''Capital in the Twenty-First Century''] - I don't think its arguments are really valid, BUT it's true that economic growth doesn't necessarily reduce income inequality

==Relationships==

*[[File:Cap.png|frameless]] [[Capitalism]] - Vital system, but if I give you more money, will you do as I say?

*[[File:Pinkcap.png|frameless]] [[Pink Capitalism]] - A bit degenerate, but it makes me earn a lot of money so I love it

*[[File:Ninjack.png|frameless]] [[User:Ninjack-Aus|Ninjack-Aus]] - Interventionist ✔, federalist ✔, nordic-model based ideology ✔. I agree on making taxes more equal, but don't raise them too much for rich people either, it's not for not making them starve, but it's in order to attract investments. In general, his policies are on the right track, but a bit too aggressive to [[File:Cap.png|frameless]] [[capitalism]] and contradictory (he's also too [[File:Lib.png|frameless]] [[Liberalism|liberal]])

*[[File:BeryAbLib.png|frameless]] [[UserWiki:BeryAb|BeryAb]] - He could be a little less globalist (economically), but the rest is really good!

*[[File:Sweatingcup.png|frameless]] [[User:SweatingCup2632|'''Me''']] - Seriously, my policies are kinda unique

*[[File:Soc.png|frameless]] [[Socialism]] - Tax the rich? Universal Basic Income?? DISCOURAGING INVESTMENTS??? What drugs are you on?! Well, at least we agree on the social part...

*[[File:Libcon.png|frameless]] [[User:ResponsibleCitizen|ResponsibleCitizen]] - A little too much [[File:Libertarian.png|frameless]] [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], that said, [[File:PCB-Cap.png|frameless]] [[capitalism]] is good indeed

*[[File:Fash.png|frameless]] [[Fascism]] - You hate everything: [[File:Cap.png|frameless]] [[capitalism]], [[File:Soc.png|frameless]] [[socialism]], [[File:Libertarian.png|frameless]] [[libertarianism]], [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png|frameless]] [[neoliberalism]]...

A classmate I despise: [[File:Swhf.png|frameless]] [[Socialism|Socialism with human face]]

*[[File:Bidenism.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden Joe Biden] - You're too friendly with the unions, as you've been cosponsor of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act Employee Free Choice Act], and you also like taxes a lot!

*[[File:Erdoğanism.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] - The Ottoman Empire is dead now, when will you understand?

*[[File:Fivestaricon.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Star_Movement Five Stars Movement] - I like cracking down fiscal evasion and unions suck for me too but your degrowth policies are absurd and you're too populist for me

*[[File:Cball-US.png|frameless]] [[File:RepubUS.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) Republican Party] - Some of your candidates improved your economy while others did not, it's a meh for Republicans as well

*[[File:Cball-Germany.png|frameless]] [[File:GerSPD.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany] - Respectable party, but you tend to be a bit too socialist

*[[File:Cball-Germany.png|frameless]] [[File:Alternative for germany ball.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany Alternative für Deutschland] - Nah, you would bring Germany to decline

*[[File:Cball-UK.png|frameless]] [[File:Con-t.png|frameless]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK) Conservative Party (UK)] - Your policies are theoretically good, but Brexit was a big flop to me

==Opinion concerning current issues==

In my opinion, making a distinction between the rights of heterosexuals and all others is like making a distinction between light and dark hair. I see absolutely no reason why a homosexual couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual one. On the other hand, if you exhibit something obscene during a demonstration, LGBTQ+ or not, it is obscene.

I will only say that homosexual couples cannot adopt a child if someone presents me with the results of a trustworthy study stating the 'abnormality' of children raised by homosexual couples.

Preventing abortion means denying a woman the human and fundamental right to be the master of her own body. I would only prevent abortion if too long after conception

Personally, I don't live in the US, and my country doesn't spend that much on the military, but as far as the yanks are concerned, you can only afford to spend that much money on the military if you have first solved all the internal deficiencies, and as things stand, [https://www.heritage.org/americas-biggest-issues you are far from that goal].

Everyone who has attended college knows what it means to have to save a lifetime to pay for tuition, books and accommodation. I am referring to you, O student who has fallen into the hands of [[File:Soc.png|frameless]] [[socialism]] after these bad experiences, try to look at everything more objectively. Imposing a price cut would cause serious problems for the economy and in the long run would only make you poorer.

Oof, hot topic. Immigration must be regularised first. For immigrants, I would have in mind a special plan to enable them in the country in the short term, helping them to find work. The immigrant, once he has found employment, would have to repay the debt he has accrued to the state, but in a rather unimpressive way. However, if the immigrant refuses or does not show enough commitment, we will be forced to find him/her temporary accommodation before re-impatriating him/her. We are good, yes, but we are not fools

The right to profess one's faith is constitutional, so both state atheism and imposed state religion are anti-constitutional. I can put up with states that have an official religion, but tolerate other faiths as well, in order to preserve their historical identity, which, like it or not, is part of the history of almost every country. I believe that religion should be protected as a cultural asset, in the case of my country, therefore, the Catholic religion, which, objectively, has been and still is a large part of our culture.

I would simply apply the aforementioned principles to gradually push companies to invest in renewable (or nuclear) resources without them having economic losses

If economically the more countries are united, the better, militarily, I think it is important to preserve a safe environment for our nation, even through arms sales or direct military involvement.

At this point we are all sure that globalisation is inevitable, but not unmanageable. Economic globalisation must be shaped according to the needs of the nation and its citizens. This means making sure the national market does have the upper hand, but with foreign markets also having the power, through competition, to shape prices in favour of the consumers and growth.

We all know Rome, the cultural cradle of Europe for years and years. And it is this feeling, this desire to return to being the cultural beacon of Europe, that separates me from pure [[File:Progress.png|frameless]] [[progressivism]]. Of course, I don't have the territorial holdings of the Roman Empire, but some territories surely belong to the state of Italy: Istria, Savoy, Nice and the Ticino area. For the rest, in my opinion, the new meaning of restoring the Roman Empire is to become the jewel of Europe, culturally, economically and socially.

Economic [[File:Leftunity.png]] [[:Category:Left Unity|Left]]/[[:Category:Right Unity|Right]] [[File:Rightunity-yellow.png]]: 1.0

[[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LL, no details.png]] [[File:LU, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:LR, no details.png]] [[File:Conserv, red line.png]] <br>

[[File:Federal.png]] [[Federalism|Federal]] 67% / 33% [[Unitarism|Unitary]] [[File:Unitary.png]] (Federal)<br>

Ideology Assignment: [[File:Clib.png]] [[Classical Liberalism]] [[File:Clib.png]] (ain't too sure about this assignment)

[[File:SWCEconValues.png|frameless]]

[[File:SWCRightValues.png|frameless]]